pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11968 · v1 · pith:PVNJKXCEnew · submitted 2019-06-27 · 💱 q-fin.GN · econ.GN· q-fin.EC

Are cryptocurrency traders pioneers or just risk-seekers? Evidence from brokerage accounts

Matthias Pelster , Bastian Breitmayer , Tim Hasso This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 14:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.GN econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords cryptocurrency tradingrisk-seekingstock tradingleverageexcitement-seekingbrokerage datavolatilityindividual investors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Investors who start trading cryptocurrencies also increase their risk-seeking in stocks through higher trading intensity and leverage use.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines individual brokerage accounts to track what happens to stock trading right when investors make their first cryptocurrency trade. It finds that stock trading intensity and leverage both rise at that moment. The rise is larger when cryptocurrency returns show low volatility, which the authors interpret as evidence that excitement-seeking, not diversification, drives the pattern. A reader would care because the result reframes cryptocurrency participation as an extension of thrill-seeking rather than a separate asset-class choice.

Core claim

Using individual-level brokerage data, the authors show that around the time of an investor's first cryptocurrency trade, stock trading intensity and leverage usage both increase. The increase in stock risk-seeking is especially large when cryptocurrency return volatility is low, which the authors take as indicating that the overall behavior is driven by excitement-seeking rather than a desire to diversify into a new asset class.

What carries the argument

The timing of changes in stock trading intensity and leverage around the first cryptocurrency trade, compared across high- and low-volatility periods in cryptocurrency returns.

If this is right

  • Cryptocurrency trading functions as an additional outlet for risk-seeking that spills over into stock positions.
  • Low cryptocurrency volatility strengthens the spillover into stock leverage and trading frequency.
  • Investors appear to treat cryptocurrency engagement as part of a broader increase in overall trading activity rather than portfolio diversification.
  • The pattern is visible in brokerage records at the individual account level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern holds, periods of calm in cryptocurrency markets could coincide with elevated risk-taking across traditional assets through behavioral channels.
  • The finding raises the possibility that participation in one high-volatility market trains or reveals a general taste for leverage that appears in other markets.
  • Similar timing studies around first trades in other speculative assets could test whether the excitement-seeking channel is specific to cryptocurrencies.

Load-bearing premise

The observed rises in stock trading intensity and leverage are caused by engaging in cryptocurrency trading rather than by other factors occurring at the same time.

What would settle it

Finding no change in stock trading intensity or leverage around the first cryptocurrency trade when the same analysis is repeated on a larger sample or after controlling for market-wide events.

read the original abstract

Are cryptocurrency traders driven by a desire to invest in a new asset class to diversify their portfolio or are they merely seeking to increase their levels of risk? To answer this question, we use individual-level brokerage data and study their behavior in stock trading around the time they engage in their first cryptocurrency trade. We find that when engaging in cryptocurrency trading investors simultaneously increase their risk-seeking behavior in stock trading as they increase their trading intensity and use of leverage. The increase in risk-seeking in stocks is particularly pronounced when volatility in cryptocurrency returns is low, suggesting that their overall behavior is driven by excitement-seeking.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses individual-level brokerage account data to study changes in stock trading behavior around investors' first cryptocurrency trade. It claims that upon engaging in crypto trading, investors simultaneously increase risk-seeking in stocks via higher trading intensity and leverage use; this increase is stronger when crypto return volatility is low, which the authors interpret as evidence that the overall pattern is driven by excitement-seeking rather than diversification motives or general risk appetite.

Significance. If the causal interpretation is supported by the identification strategy, the paper would supply micro-level evidence on how retail investors' entry into a new high-volatility asset class spills over into traditional asset trading. This could help distinguish thrill-seeking from other motives in behavioral finance models and inform discussions of retail investor protection in cryptocurrency markets. The brokerage data source is a potential strength for within-person comparisons.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (Identification and Empirical Strategy): The central claim requires that the timing of the first crypto trade is exogenous to other drivers of stock risk-taking. The abstract provides no description of the econometric specification (individual fixed effects, event-window controls, matched non-crypto traders, or market-wide time trends), so it is impossible to assess whether the design rules out selection, common shocks, or reverse causality. This is load-bearing for the excitement-seeking interpretation.
  2. [Results section] Results section / Table reporting main effects: The abstract states that risk-seeking in stocks rises 'particularly pronounced when volatility in cryptocurrency returns is low,' but without the corresponding interaction coefficient, standard errors, or subsample definitions it is unclear whether this heterogeneity is statistically distinguishable from zero after accounting for multiple comparisons or alternative volatility measures.
  3. [Data section] Data section: No sample size, number of first-time crypto traders, or summary statistics on pre- and post-trade stock activity are provided, preventing evaluation of statistical power or whether the patterns are driven by a small number of extreme observations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should explicitly state the sample period, number of accounts, and key econometric controls so readers can immediately gauge the scope of the evidence.
  2. Notation for 'trading intensity' and 'leverage' should be defined consistently when first introduced; it is currently unclear whether these are turnover ratios, number of trades, or margin usage measures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our identification strategy, results, and data. We respond to each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Identification and Empirical Strategy): The central claim requires that the timing of the first crypto trade is exogenous to other drivers of stock risk-taking. The abstract provides no description of the econometric specification (individual fixed effects, event-window controls, matched non-crypto traders, or market-wide time trends), so it is impossible to assess whether the design rules out selection, common shocks, or reverse causality. This is load-bearing for the excitement-seeking interpretation.

    Authors: Section 3 details the empirical strategy: we use investor fixed effects, an event window around each investor's first crypto trade, year-month fixed effects for market-wide trends, and a matched control group of non-crypto traders. The design treats the first crypto trade as the exogenous event of interest conditional on these controls, as entry is driven by the arrival of a new asset class. We agree the abstract omits this description and will add a concise summary of the specification to the abstract. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results section / Table reporting main effects: The abstract states that risk-seeking in stocks rises 'particularly pronounced when volatility in cryptocurrency returns is low,' but without the corresponding interaction coefficient, standard errors, or subsample definitions it is unclear whether this heterogeneity is statistically distinguishable from zero after accounting for multiple comparisons or alternative volatility measures.

    Authors: The interaction between the post-crypto-trade indicator and a low-volatility dummy is reported in the main results table, with a positive and statistically significant coefficient. The low-volatility subsample is defined using the median of realized crypto return volatility over the sample period; robustness checks with alternative thresholds and measures are in the appendix. We will include the key interaction coefficient and standard error in the revised abstract. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Data section: No sample size, number of first-time crypto traders, or summary statistics on pre- and post-trade stock activity are provided, preventing evaluation of statistical power or whether the patterns are driven by a small number of extreme observations.

    Authors: The data section and Table 1 report the full sample size, the number of first-time crypto traders, and pre/post means for trading intensity and leverage. We will add explicit statements of these figures in the main text and a note on power in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational empirical study with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

The paper reports an observational analysis of individual brokerage accounts, comparing stock trading behavior before and after the first cryptocurrency trade. No equations, fitted parameters, theoretical derivations, or predictions are described in the provided text. Claims rest on direct empirical patterns (increased trading intensity and leverage) without any reduction to inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or ansatzes. This is a standard event-study style empirical paper whose central claims do not reduce to tautology; the design is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that brokerage records capture investor decisions accurately enough to identify behavioral shifts around an event and on standard event-study identification assumptions in finance.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Brokerage account data accurately reflects individual investor trading decisions and timing
    The study uses timing of first crypto trade as the key event marker.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5631 in / 1062 out tokens · 40157 ms · 2026-05-25T14:00:40.942369+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baek, C., & Elbeck, M. (2015). Bitcoins as an investment or speculative vehicle? A first look. Applied Economics Letters, 22 (1), 30 -34. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2014.916379

    work page doi:10.1080/13504851.2014.916379 2015

  2. [2]

    G ., & Dimpfl, T

    Baur, D. G ., & Dimpfl, T. (2018). Asymmetric volatility in cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters, 173, 148-151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.008 Brière, M., Oosterlinck, K., & Szafarz, A. ( 2015). Virtual currency, tangible return: Portfolio diversification with bitcoin. Journal of Asset Management, 16 (6), 365 -373. doi:https://doi.org/10...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.008 2018

  3. [3]

    Gao, X., & Lin, T. -C. (2015). Do Indivi dual Investors Treat Trading as a Fun and Exciting Gambling Activity? Evidence from Repeated Natural Experiments. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(7), 2128-2166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu075

    work page doi:10.1093/rfs/hhu075 2015

  4. [4]

    Gkillas, K., & Katsiampa, P. (2018). An application of extreme value theory to cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters, 164 , 109 -111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.01.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2018.01.020 2018

  5. [5]

    Hasso, T., Pels ter, M., & Breitmayer, B. (2019). Who trades cryptocurrencies, how do they trade it, and how do they perform? Evidence from brokerage accounts. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 23 , 64 -74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.009 2019

  6. [6]

    Phillip, A., Chan, J. S. K., & Peiris, S. (2018). A new look at Cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters, 163, 6-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.11.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2017.11.020 2018

  7. [7]

    Schiller, R. J. (2017). What Is Bitcoin Really Worth? Don’t Even Ask. New York Times

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Urquhart, A. (2018). What causes the attention of Bitcoin? Economics Letters, 166 , 40-44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.02.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2018.02.017 2018

  9. [9]

    Yelowitz, A., & Wilson, M. (2015). Characteristics of Bitcoin users: an analysis of Google search data. Applied Economics Letters, 22 (13), 1030 -1036. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2014.995359

    work page doi:10.1080/13504851.2014.995359 2015